Recently Rick Reilly focused his ESPN.com column on Utah's credentials as College Football's national champion and lamented the fact that, due to the current system, Utah will not be able to compete for one.
Reilly's article was as much about the shortcomings of the BCS as it was about Utah's case for the national championship. His criticism is not new: The BCS systematically reduces the chance of non-BCS schools to achieve bids to BCS bowl games, and systematically excludes those same schools for competing in a national championship game.
Unfortunately for Reilly, he misses the real consequence of this situation. Reilly's tone suggests (like many others, I concede) that the travesty of the BCS is that teams like Utah do not get a shot at the national championship they deserve. In reality, the disgust with the BCS reveals that it very rarely has been able to achieve what it was meant to—providing an undisputed national champion.
Indifference, not outrage, is a more appropriate response to this year's college football situation—not because Utah is the "true" national champ, or because the winner of Thursday's game will be, but because, to most people, the national championship will once again be an unresolved matter.
Reilly does suggest an outcome of the BCS system that should engender outrage. The difficulty of non-BCS schools to earn major bowl bids unfairly perpetuates a system that excludes those schools from reaping the money and media attention they deserve while maintaining a status quo for the SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, Big East, and Pac-10.
The system of the status quo is being challenged, however. In many instances non-BCS schools are faring well when they get the chance, with Utah providing the most recent example. The excitement inspired by Boise State and Utah are the biggest reasons for speculation as to what a true national championship would and could be.
0 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete